Quote:
Your response indicates you either didn't read or understand any of what I said, I even quoted your own quote. Regardless, if you think combining all those IEM's would be equal to your $99 sony's from your teenage days I question what you are hearing or whether your hearing has diminshed considerably over time. Just a thought.
Alec E's thoughts on:
MTPC's:
-I thought the MTP Copper sounded like a ghetto blaster. (really? you obviously didn't bother to read on insertion depth)
-SOLD I received a new Monster Turbine Pro Copper from Dell today, and I dislike it--much too warm and bass-heavy for my taste. (Coppers too warm? I think most find them a fraction brighter than neutral. Again, you are not hearing the phones accurately or something is wrong)
-I don't have any familiarity with the company's reputation in general, but the MTP Copper is, in my humble opinion, a joke. Nothing with such domineering bass, and such negligible soundstage, should be considered "top tier." (Obviously all the Copper fans out there are either deaf, dumb or fanboys...srry guys)
-They'll turn on it in a month, just like they turn on everything else. (Alec E fashion)
SM3's
-Is it not bothersome that these are surely the ugliest high end earphones in existence? (useful)
Radius HP
-Aaaaaand we have a new contender for world's ugliest IEM! (more useful)
Deny it, run from it, hide it as much as you like, you claimed no earphones are as good as headphones and that's a universal truth. I made a sarcastic remark and you got offended. Well, thats not my problem. I can also think of 20 IEM's I would take over any particular 100 headphones.
You again generalize and suggest everyone here only has one recommendation, spend more money. Whats your solution? Don't spend any money and keep the IEM's he hates? Or spend more money on what YOU think is better, headphones? What exactly is your point? I haven't seen you offer the OP any advice other than IEM's suck and that you were offended.
Whatever, I'd prefer to get back to the problem of the OP.
Understanding many of your sentences is difficult, I've admitted.
I see it was my dislike of the (second-) latest Head-Fi flavor of the month, the MTP Copper, which has prompted your obsession. I'd thought the blowback from my having dared to dislike that product had ended--hope springs eternal. You say that it sounded badly to me because I didn't read something or other about insertion depth. How do you know that I didn't have it inserted ideally, and it simply wasn't up to my standards? You're presumptuous. (Furthermore, let me say that earphones are intended to be portable devices. Those earphones which require constant reinsertion, like those which require amps, are de facto flawed in my perfectly reasonable opinion. I am a music listener, not a gadget hobbyist.)
And you say I may have may hearing issues because of what I said about a pair of headphones which you likely haven't heard--which weren't even named--in the course of my comparing them to several earphones which you likely haven't heard. Embarrassing.
I certainly did say that I found two new devices ugly. Can you explain why I'm forbidden from doing that, or why this is of interest to you? Were you similarly policing the many comments on the hideousness of the MTP Miles Davis edition? If so, you may have found my post in which I defended its appearance. You wouldn't want to share that now, however, as it wouldn't aid your project of caricaturing me.
I did not claim that "no earphones are as good as headphones." That would be a meaningless statement to me. Which "earphones"? Which "headphones"? I have said that in general--and so you can dismiss this, along with the vast majority of other utterances by any homo sapien, as a generalization--earphones are felt by serious listeners to provide worse sound quality than headphones. And this is now the third or fourth clarification of that uncontroversial and simple observation that I've provided for you, and I've also explained why, with regard to the thread's first post, I made the original, apparently infuriating statement.
I did not say that "IEMs suck." A sentence like that would be "Anaxilus fashion," not "Alec E" fashion, you might say.
As for the definition of what is and isn't an IEM, the only two earphones ever mentioned on this site, these days, which fit the definition of an "IEM" are the Etymotic models and perhaps one Klipsch model. It is a term used in order to lend an air of expertise and seriousness to remarks which merit neither, in my opinion.
I am not "offended" by your having repeatedly insulted me, by the way. You're giving yourself too much credit. I am only baffled that you think you're behaving in a way which reflects badly on me, rather than on yourself.
A forum is for subjective opinions and yes, often, generalizations. If you can't handle that, you have intolerance issues--which is quite obvious at this point.
